20 July 2008

Why one should wash thoroughly after visiting Uncommon Descent

My foray into the land of Intelligent Design partisans last month was both interesting and frustrating. I was able to explain a little of why I will never embrace the sad, sick movement, and I learned a little more about what's under the hood of that wrecked vehicle. My conversation with Thomas Cudworth and a few others went fine, I thought, despite the fact that many of my comments met nearly invincible incredulity regarding my flat axiomatic rejection of the claim that "random" or "natural" means "unguided" or "out of God's hands."

Some of the participants asked some of the usual questions, with some of the usual attitude, and I think I'll use the questions as the basis of a few posts in the next month or so. In the meantime, I've visited Uncommon Descent a few times in the past couple of weeks, which is a big change from my prior refusal to go anywhere near the place. (It's like visiting Pharyngula, but with far less wit and even less science.) (It's also like those gory movies they showed us in Drivers' Ed -- weirdly fascinating for a few minutes, then tediously nauseating after that.)

Well, today, I was reminded of why I can't stand the place, or most of the movement it represents.

Last week, Olivia Judson (writer of the evolution-themed blog The Wild Side at the New York Times) wrote a superb piece on the term "Darwinism," in a series on Charles Darwin and his influence/legacy. The series has been excellent, and the piece on "Darwinism" was superb. (Recommendation: If you can't stomach Bill Dembski, just go read Judson's post and don't bother reading the rest of mine.)

Here is Judson't simple point:
I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.
Now, even if we didn't have anti-evolution propagandists employing the term "Darwinism" for the purpose of sowing confusion and fomenting religious opposition to science, the term would be "insidious" for the reasons Judson cites. Ditto for "Darwinist." In the case of "Darwinian," though, there is ample scientific precedent for using the term to indicate evolutionary changes (or mechanisms) specifically associated with selection, as opposed to other known forces (such as random genetic drift) that lead to evolutionary change, and "darwinian fitness," synonymous with reproductive fitness of a genotype, is a fairly standard term in genetics.

But Olivia Judson is right. After all, we don't call genetics "Mendelism," we don't call neuroscience "Cajalism," we don't call molecular biologists "WatsonCrickists," and no one accuses astronomers of being "Copernicans." The term is silly, and to a certain extent so is the overemphasis on Darwin and his birthday.

So, how is Olivia Judson's piece discussed at Uncommon Descent? With a barbaric comparison of Darwin, the "cornerstone" of evolutionary biology, with Christ, the cornerstone of Christian faith. Here's my response to Dembski's weird little rant:
Judson is right on in every way in her piece. We don't call genetics "Mendelism" or molecular biology "WatsonCrickism," and the abuse of the term "Darwinism," a specialty of this rancid blog, is just one reason to dispense with the term.

The sickest part of your post, Mr. Dembski, was where you mangled Judson's use of term "cornerstone" and then associated it with our Christian references to Christ himself. Judson's reference, of course, was not to Mr. Darwin but to "several of his ideas," which she and others note don't even originate exclusively or completely with him. Christ, on the other hand, IS the cornerstone of our faith. To link Darwin's place in evolutionary theory with Christ's place in the kingdom of God is really sick.

The quote from Jerry Coyne is pretty good, and funny thing: it doesn't mention Darwin at all. Coyne may be an a--, but if you think he worships Darwin, then you'll have to do some better quotemining than that.

Come on, guys. There's just no way this blog can be taken seriously as a place to defend and discuss design as long as it is characterized by twaddle like this.
The comment went up this evening, and lasted something less than an hour, probably closer to 30 minutes. It resulted in my immediate banning and much mirth on my deck (where I was relaxing with the laptop, enjoying the fireflies and feeding the mosquitoes). And there's already an obituary, which hilariously opines that I was "going out of my way to be negative." If that's negative, then what on earth does he call Dembski's swill? I call it sick. I think I already mentioned that.

Uncommon Descent is a cesspool. I'm eager to discuss design and evolution with Christians of diverse persuasions, and I know it can be done without the kind of desperate intellectual vandalism that characterizes Bill Dembski's writing at UD. But this much is clear: it can't be done at Uncommon Descent, as I repeatedly noted when I was there. It's hard to imagine a less apt forum for the serious consideration of Christian views of biological origins.

23 comments:

John H said...

Congratulations on surviving as long as you did. I managed about three days before DaveScot banned me. :-)

Anonymous said...

"After all, we don't call genetics 'Mendelism,'..."

I found this a bit ironic. One does occasionally see the term "Mendelian genetics" (or sometimes, "simple Mendelian genetics"). The irony is that it's only used in reference to the simplest sort of one gene-one trait inheritence, like the famous wrinkled peas.

In other words, it's used in deliberate effort to highlight a type of inheritence that's much simpler than what we now know to be the norm.

Rather different than what typical ID proponents intend when referring to "Darwinian evolution."

***

On a related topic, I was interested to better understand your views on teleogy and evolution, and posed a couple of questions to you in the comments to "Uncommon Descent conversation, part 5." If you're willing, I'd very much appreciate hearing your responses. If not, I'll let it drop.

Thanks!

Martin Lane said...

I can relate. I've been banned from various political discussion websites for challenging the 'debate paradigm' and for referring to the output of the various posters as if it were a singular thing.

"...this blog...characterized by twaddle..."

We only make comments like that when we're frustrated. And they definitely don't like that, even if it can be demonstrated to be "true." This, no doubt, is what dude was referring to as going out your way to be negative.

But, focusing on the tone and not your content, is twaddle, of course.

You did try. And for your efforts, I'm awarding you with this medal.

Gordon J. Glover said...

I couldn't believe how cordial you were behaving. I thought for sure you found a way to walk the thin line between honesty and civility. But I guess at UD, the truth is too inconvenient to be tolerated.

If a tree can be judged by its fruits....

A while back, I got banned for suggesting that the if the design inference is so good at adding to the scientific body of knowledge, then why not use it for disciplines other than the life sciences?

That rhetorical suggestion actually got some traction and I thought I was on my way to being considered a thoughtful commenter on UD. Of course, when I used a few examples to demonstrate how the design inference inevitably leads to epistemological confusion and ultimately shuts down scientific inquiry, I was quickly banned and my comments removed.

I used a similar argument in this video here by showing how a even something as ordinarty as a hurricane meets the basic criteria of specified complexity. Of course, the reason why meteorologists don't invoke the design inference is obvious -- it doesn't add anything non-trivial to our systematic study of the sytem.

http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2008/07/17/education-series-lesson-14/

Bilbo said...

I'm not sure, but I think I might be the only ID advocate who has been banned at UD. Congratulations for lasting as long as you did.

Bilbo said...

But if you frequent Pharyngula, I hope you have responded with as much outrage to Myers' whole disgusting thing with the communion wafer. I used to visit his blog, because it was informative, entertaining, and we share similar political views. Since then, I don't think I can stomach it.

Anonymous said...

You have joined the long list of the Expelled!

RBH said...

You've joined distinguished company, Stephen. A friend of mine, a Ph.D. neuroscientist and a theist, was banned from UD some time ago for observing that natural selection precisely meets Dembski's definition of "intelligence." :)

Kevin Corcoran said...

What has Texas given us? Salmonella tainted tomatoes and jalapeno peppers, Dissidens at remonstrans.net, Uncommon Descent and our President. Maybe BD, GW and Mr. D have consumed some of those tomatoes or jalapeno peppers and that explains their otherwise curious and troubling verbal (and in the case of GW, also political) antics.

John Farrell said...

Well, it finally happened. It couldn't have been over a better post, Steve. Dembski is a cupcake and I think you nailed him on this one.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else find the image at Dembski's post disturbing, uncharitable and wholly out of place on a Christian blog post?

That guy's been bitten by the Coulter bug somethin' fierce.

Bilbo said...

Steve,

I'm serious about PZ Myers. Did you react with as much outrage to him as you did to Dembski? If not, I suggest you have double standard.

Karen James said...

WatsonCrickist. I like it.

Anonymous said...

Karen, I think I'd prefer
WatsonCricketers.

As an Englishman myself, see?

Anonymous said...

It took me a while to realize that it actually is Olivia Judson in that image. That softens my opinion of it somewhat. But I'm sticking by the Coulter comparison.

Stephen Matheson said...

Well, thanks to all my well-wishers and fellow exiles and escapees from Bill's icky sandbox. I still think it was worth it, because my romantic side believes that some of the folks there will wake up, wander out into the daylight, come here for rehab, and meet you all. :-) Even if we only save one...

To qetzal: sometime soon, as a separate post.

To Gordon: stop distracting me; I'm writing an important book review right now ;-)

Bilbo, I'll deal with "double standards" in an upcoming post. It won't be pretty.

AMW: Dembski is sick. What more can you say?

Anonymous said...

I can't read or think of the word "Darwinism" without hearing Ben Stein's voice: "DAARRwinism". Lord, get it out of my head!!

Bilbo said...

Being banned at UD, I couldn't respond to Dembski, but being a member at telicthoughts.com allowed me to post this:

http://telicthoughts.com/prominent-idist-a-darwinist/#more-2300

Darwin said...

Ah, congrats on the banning.

It's a corrosive mental environment, but one does feel that one must try until banned. I think it took me about a month, but it's been a while.

I think I might actually share your feelings in finding UD more offensive than Pharyngula -- though PZ has certainly been going above and beyond lately against us Catholics. But the UD folks almost universally claim to be Christians, and as a Christian that makes their disregard for truth (and though I'm sure they think they're right, I don't see how you can take their selective quoting and dissent quashing as anything other than disregard for truth) much more offensive to me.

PZ, on the other hand, has hating theists as one of his reasons for being -- and so his Christian-baiting hardly comes as a surprise.

Bilbo said...

Darwin wrote: PZ, on the other hand, has hating theists as one of his reasons for being -- and so his Christian-baiting hardly comes as a surprise.

Not a surprise, but a disappointment. Criticizing another's religion is one thing. Purposely carrying out an act that would be seen as a descration to the other's religion is quite another, and it goes way beyond the pale of decency. He should be strongly criticized for it by his peers.

If you'll read what I've written about Dembski, I think you'll see that I'm willing to go where apparently Prof. Matheson is not.

Bilbo said...

In case one doesn't want to visist telicthoughts.com, here's what I said:
Dembski was responding to Olivia Judson, who had suggested in a NY Times op ed that even though Darwin's idea of natural selection was the "cornerstone" of evolutinary theory, since evolutionary theory has advanced so much, we should probably use some other term besides "Darwinism." Dembski took this as an attempt to shield present evolutionary theory from criticisms by distancing it from Darwin. And I guess you can see what he thinks about Darwin.

From what I can tell, Mike Gene is a neo-Darwinist who suspects that the original cells were designed and front-loaded with information that would exploit Darwinian processes (random mutation + natural selection). And Mike isn't afraid to give Darwin credit. So if Dembski's criticism is true, then I guess Mike is guilty of following a false Messiah.

I wonder if Dembski thinks that Sun Myung Moon is the true Messiah? He co-authored a book with Jonathan Wells, who does believe Moon is the Messiah.

Further, Michael Behe believes in two of Darwin's pillars of evolution: common descent and natural selection. And Behe believes that random mutation can account for how species originate, perhaps even Genera, Families, and Orders. So should Behe be termed a semi-heretic? Perhaps that was why this pillar of the ID movement was expelled from the movie, Expelled.

Bilbo said...

And this: Eric, certainly Darwin's theory has been used to bolster philosophical materialism. However, there are many, many Theistic Evolutionists who think Darwin got it right, but who still believe in God. By not only branding Darwin as the Messiah of a materialistic religion, but as one who intended to be that, Dembski in effect is saying that all Theistic Evolutionists are in a religiously compromised position. And I think they would be right to be offended by Dembski's remarks. I know of one professor of biology who responded to Dembski in just such an offended manner, and was banned, even though there was no use of inappropriate language.

Further, Dembski is implying that the only reason atheistic evolutionists buy into Darwin is to bolster their philosophy, an insult to them.

I'm not quote-mining either of the Mikes. It seems pretty clear that Mike Gene buys into Darwin's theory. But he also buys into Behe's argument from Irreducible Complexity. I suspect that he suspects that front-loading at the origin of life would help explain Irreducible Complexity.

And in his book, The Edge of Evolution, Behe has a diagram showing that random mutation (contingency) can account for at least life up to the species level, if not further up. That would mean that our own species could be accounted for by random mutation from the ancestor of our genus. That's a lot to admit in the Christian world, where we are supposed to be purposely designed in God's image. In my opinion, it's no accident that Behe wasn't in the movie Expelled.

As to the evidence for Darwinian evolution: beats me. I'm just a layperson, looking from the sidelines.

Kelvin Wright said...

As a Christian who has no doubts whatsoever about the age of the earth as accepted by common agreement in the scientific community or about the concept of the common descent of species from a common source, and as one who is not enamoured of the ID movement, I have found your blog refreshing. If I was in the mood for applying labels to myself you've given me some I might choose from.Thanks.

I can't agree about the term Darwinian /Darwinist / neo Darwinist however. I can see that these terms play a role within the odd, and peculiarly American debate on Creationism vs evolutionary thought. For those of us that live outside the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave however, the term doesn't have quite the political and emotional impact. In the same way that Freudianism or neo-Freudianism has a very specific reference not to depth psychology in general but to a particular method of depth psychology,so Darwinism has a very specific reference not to evolution in general but to a particular emphasis on the means by which evolution occurs.

I agree that it is annoying when people think that if they can discredit Darwin on some point or other they have put a lethal torpedo into the whole ship of evolutionary theory. But I live where creationists are a tiny and feeble minority, and we can ignore such arguments and get on with the really interesting stuff - figuring out the HOW of the accepted fact of evolution. In that quest, and at a time when the processes of evolution are becoming more fully and broadly understood,Darwinism as a particular descriptor of one school of thought remains a useful term. I'm not sure what you'd replace it with.